Memo to the State-Run Media

This guy will not give anyone a job. I fail to grasp why that is so difficult to understand, yet the New York Times on Saturday published an editorial piece that - on its face - seemed critical of Barack Hussein Obama. Well, it was, but for an entirely different reason than I initially thought when I saw the byline; the Times complains that Obama is not enough of a Socialist.

Grudgingly admitting in the second paragraph that the economy is worse than the Obama administration will acknowledge, the Times piece launches immediately into defense mode in the third paragraph. It fallaciously states that, "The fiscal stimulus of 2009, coupled with low interest rates and other Federal Reserve interventions, kept the recession from being much worse." Clearly there is no way to substantiate such a claim because it is inherently speculative. Furthermore, it has been widely reported that much of the stimulus money hasn't been spent, and that a large percentage went towards creating a larger government.

It is a universally known fact that federal employees now earn more than private workers, and the ranks of government workers have increased at an alarming pace. What this means, of course, is that more people, earning higher wages, are being compensated from an employer that produces virtually nothing. The payroll is funded from the labors of an ever-dwindling work force of producers.

The piece then goes further, complaining of Congressional gridlock and blaming the minority party - Republicans - for the Democrats'  inability to "accomplish" anything. Perhaps the Times editorial staff has already forgotten the massive Health Care legislation, force fed on a decidedly unwilling populace, and the maneuvering of the majority party in that alleged victory.

But perhaps the most egregious example of political bias - and a gross misunderstanding of economic principle - comes in paragraph seven. Speaking of Obama, the piece states:

"First, he needs to keep driving home that he is committed to addressing the deficit, and that he will call for widespread sacrifice to do so — starting with letting the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans expire at year end. Mr. Obama must tell Americans that claims from Republican leaders that the country can both cut taxes and tackle the deficit are absurd and cynical."

What is absurd is the notion that increasing taxes on the wealthy - the actual employers of the country - will somehow fill the coffers of the federal government. Keeping in mind the growing number of people drawing a paycheck from the government, it stands to reason that the problem would only suffer the domino effect. The employers, forced to fund more of the insatiable government, will move more of their businesses offshore and shield even more of their incomes from the intrusive clutches of Uncle Sam.

The very next paragraph reveals the chilling idiocy of the Liberal mindset:

"Next, he needs to explain why too much sacrifice, too soon, especially from the middle class, would do more harm than good while the economy is weak. More government support is needed until conditions improve."

Anyone who actually belongs to the middle class understands all too well that that statement is ridiculous, for while the Liberal elites claim to target the "wealthy", it is the middle class - doing well, but not well enough to either run or hide - who will be leaned on to support the "more government" that the Times endorses.

The Times editorial concludes with this obsequious gem:

"The economic damage they inherited was too deep, and the economic stimulus they pushed through Congress, for all of the fight, was too small."

Toeing the party line, the Times dutifully perpetuates the lunacy that what Obama "inherited" was anything but incestuous, a gift from his own party, who managed to derail the Bush years in only two, after regaining control of the Congressional purse strings in 2007.

The most frightening aspect of such an editorial is the fact that readers of that publication already consider themselves intellectually head and shoulders above the rest of us. Granted, they are generally better educated and more handsomely compensated for their labors, but they are dupes nonetheless. Armed with the almighty New York Times, they may prove to be too formidable an adversary for the everyday, naturally smarter person who would otherwise disagree forcefully with such a position. That line of thought must change.

Sphere: Related Content

What Child Is This

"One of the central goals of this administration is restoring fiscal responsibility". - Barack Hussein Obama, Brookings Institution, December 8th 2009

Through the first two months of fiscal year 2010, the Obama administration has racked up $292 billion in deficits, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Factored out over the entire fiscal year, that equates to a deficit of just over $1.75 trillion. Add that to the deficit in Obama's first year, $1.4 trillion, and we're talking some serious coinage. What's even more striking is that in one year, this administration is set to surpass its previous year's deficit by nearly the entire total deficit of the last year of the Bush administration, and yet Obama speaks of "restoring fiscal responsibility"?

The coming projected deficit might even be a conservative estimate, since Obama is talking about "spending our way out of this trouble". This is coming from a man who has presided over only one budgetary venture in which he ended up squandering over $20 million. I wonder who he blamed for that fiasco? Did he blame his predecessor at the Annenberg Challenge then, too?

Speaking at Brookings on jobs, Obama incredibly tried to portray the first "stimulus" as such a success that he was preparing to launch a new wave of spending; a second stimulus. The first question this raises is, if it was such a success, why is another needed? If by success he means a .2% reduction in a near-record unemployment rate, how much more non-existent money is he planning to spend, and to what end?

I have compared this president to Don Quixote, but the more I watch him, the more I am convinced that such a comparison may have been too kind. Perhaps a more accurate description may be that of a young boy dressed in his father's suit, playing at being grown up. Having won the prize that dazzled his eyes, he now finds himself tripping over the cuffs of the pants that extend far beyond his shoes.

Having discovered that the presidential waters are much deeper and much more treacherous than he probably imagined, he flails and fumbles while blaming everything on Bush, all the while whining about how hard he's working. And just like the child who plaintively wails to Mom to buy him that candy, he is determined to get his health care horror passed into law, and right now, and he cares not a whit if it takes Mom's last dollar.

In spite of the terrible state of our nation, I still can't help but chuckle at the recollection of the claims of the left that "we finally have a grown-up in charge". I wonder if they're mature enough themselves to realize and admit that they've been duped?

Sphere: Related Content

Sanity Sentinel Saves Millions Of Jobs

That's right, boys and girls, using the same criteria as the Obama administration, I can say with certainty that this humble blog saved a million jobs today alone!

Saving jobs is so easy, anyone can do it. And since I have a stat-tracker for this site, I know for a fact that a million people did not read this blog today. What that means, of course, is that they also did not get caught reading it at work and therefore were not fired. I can't be certain whether or not any jobs were created, but since someone at blogger.com must take my posts and make them appear for the public, I think I will claim to have created some jobs anyway.

The only danger in doing this is the fact that my little ol' blog is more likely to receive investigative scrutiny from the mainstream media than is the president of the United States. He can make any claim he pleases no matter how ludicrous, and the media merely parrots his words on the nightly news and in print. As the Wall Street Journal is reporting today:

Mr. Obama's comments yesterday are a perfect illustration of just such a claim. In the months since Congress approved the stimulus, our economy has lost nearly 1.6 million jobs and unemployment has hit 9.4%. Invoke the magic words, however, and -- presto! -- you have the president claiming he has "saved or created" 150,000 jobs. It all makes for a much nicer spin, and helps you forget this is the same team that only a few months ago promised us that passing the stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising over 8%.

Also from the same article, the following:

It's not only former Bush staffers such as Messrs. Fratto and Mankiw who have noted the political convenience here. During a March hearing of the Senate Finance Committee, Chairman Max Baucus challenged Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on the formula.

"You created a situation where you cannot be wrong," said the Montana Democrat. "If the economy loses two million jobs over the next few years, you can say yes, but it would've lost 5.5 million jobs. If we create a million jobs, you can say, well, it would have lost 2.5 million jobs. You've given yourself complete leverage where you cannot be wrong, because you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct."

So it is with great pride that I can claim to be helping to save the economy and the livelihoods of millions of my fellow Americans.

Sphere: Related Content

Houston, We Have A Problem

I have suffered a slight bout of half-century envy of late partly because, for the first time in my life, the President of the United States is younger than I am. It is quite an adjustment to realize that the leader of the free world was still in high school while I was reciting my wedding vows and later waiting for my first-born to be...um, born.

But this guy...he is something special, someone with an oratorical gift and an education to die for, so I was somewhat at ease when he was sworn in, political angst notwithstanding. At least I could sleep at night knowing that America was in good, smart hands. This president was no frat boy like his predecessor...we finally had a grown-up at the helm. Whew!

Barack Obama was sworn in by Justice Roberts 6 weeks ago, and in that time my Ambien costs have tripled, so much so that Patrick Kennedy was recently seen jonesing for a fix on a Boston street corner while complaining that he had a crucial vote to attend and time was of the essence. Sorry Patty, but you can blame the head of your party, sport. He's the one (or The One) responsible for the run on sleep aids.

There are reports that President Obama is seeking the financial counsel of the founder of Twitter, as well as a former Google guy, in an attempt to get a handle on the economic bus heading for the Depression cliff. Perhaps it's fitting for the Twitter geek to help this administration. While Twitter boasts a membership of 6 million and 700% growth, the endeavor makes no money in the U.S. Sounds like a match made in Heaven. For Lucifer.

John Stewart had a funny take on the Twitter phenomenon, which you can enjoy here:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Twitter Frenzy

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

I have some valuable advice for the Kid in Chief; contact the head of Tonka for help with the auto industry.

Heck, maybe the mustachioed Monopoly man can apply for the deputy position under Timothy Geithner?

Sphere: Related Content

A Wing And A Prayer

That seems to be the modus operandi of the new administration. Obama now wants to spend at least $75 billion on saving homeowners from foreclosure. Some reports indicate that this amount could be backed up by another $200 billion, but to listen to Vice President Biden's chief economic advisor, Jared Bernstein explain it, it sounds even more like no one in the administration has a clear strategy and that they are making it up as they go.

Sphere: Related Content

Not By Land Or Sea; They're Already Here

Somewhere around the 11th century BC, the Greeks learned how to defeat Troy after a futile 10-year siege of that city. Since her defenses proved impenetrable from without, the Greeks built the Trojan Horse as a faux-peace offering. When the gullible Trojans wheeled the giant structure inside their gates, they were slaughtered in the middle of the night by Greek soldiers hiding in its belly. Personally, I would prefer slaughter over enslavement, but that seems to be where we're headed.

The United States Constitution was crafted by some very brilliant men who were themselves fugitives from the very oppression they sought to belay with that cherished document. It began:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Make no mistake, the word "welfare" had an entirely different meaning in the 18th century. Of particular interest in the above caption, however, are the words, "provide for the common defence [sic]". That was the most important task bestowed on the federal government as designed by the founders. Today, the very people we elect to office - and who swear an oath to uphold the constitution - scoff at the notion of defense in favor of social programs of which they have no cause to pursue. Forgive me, but I consider that a violation of the oath.

Let's move more into contemporary times and things the Founders could never have foreseen, but remain tethered to the tenets of their vision, for without them, our nation is doomed.

This immense spending bill that Congress is currently attempting to ram down the throats of the American people is contrary to the very fabric on which this nation is sewn. To make matters worse, while these elected "leaders" delve into areas of our lives that were never intended to be delved into, they simultaneously denigrate defense spending, the one thing on which they were destined to concentrate.

Article 1, Section III of the Constitution outlined the method by which U.S. Senators would be chosen, and it was clear; each state in the Union was a sovereign territory as a member of the United States and each State's government (Legislature) would choose its Senators to represent that state. But in 1912, congress decided to move that responsibility to the people, a euphemism for "you and me". Anyone who has been conscious for the past few decades must realize that "the people" is not us, but the elites we send to the Capitol, in most cases over and over and over again, until the humble public servants become that which we feared in the beginning. On April 8th, 1913, Amendment 17 was ratified, and senators became the property of the federal government, no longer interested in the concerns of their home states save for what they could "get" from the big brother of the federal government, but more members of an exclusive club by which they could enrich themselves while pretending to work for the people.

The 10th amendment stated thus:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And yet Charlie Rangel (D-Bronx), Chairman of the House Ways And Means Committee, said at a January 2009 hearing that state legislatures stood in the way of progress and needed to be bypassed, somehow. Don't believe it? Watch the video:


Next, add the language of this so-called stimulus package that the Obama administration and a friendly congress want to ram through the process, and a pattern clearly emerges; the big wooden horse is right outside the window as we prepare to blow out the lanterns and settle in for the night.

Still not convinced? Fine, we'll keep going in the hope that insomnia may save us yet. I realize that I may be preaching to the choir here, but there is more to explore.

Also buried within the voluminous stimulus bill are mechanisms to allow for intrusions into every American's medical records, again ostensibly for the "good of all". "Hey man, we're just trying to make your life easier" has become the catch-phrase by which people flop on the ground and willingly surrender like so many young elk when confronted with a massive alpha male during mating season.

I hope the choir is still awake, because I know that anyone of a different mind has long given up and accepted the offer of peace from the Greeks outside the gate and slumbers, albeit briefly, peacefully. To quote Jon Anderson, "Silly human race".

My parting shot will be to point out the attempts by the current controlling party to silence the opposition for good; the "Fairness Doctrine". Yep, the Dems are haltingly speaking out on how important it is for the "people" to hear both sides of the argument while neglecting to mention that those of my stripe have been force-fed a steady diet of the likes of Katie Couric and Charles Gibson for far too long. I have noticed that that which the controlling party deems "mainstream" has not borne the scorn of the FCC...have any of you?

Whether it be Paul Revere or some centurion of ancient Troy, someone must awaken the people within the walls before it's too late.

Sphere: Related Content

Why The Pendulum Will Swing In 2010

Remember when health care for all was the mantra of the left, a rallying cry for wanna-be socialists to grab the wheel of America's helm and yank hard to port? Remember how cruel was George W. Bush and every republican in elected life for ignoring the needs of a grossly misreported figure of 47 million "uninsured" Americans? Well, that will soon be fixed by the democrats and the new president's administration.

As part of the stimulus plan just passed by the senate by a vote of 61-37, health care - as envisioned by none other than Tom Daschle - plays a large role, but it's not the all-inclusive version that many wailing liberals had in mind. Betsy McCaughey - New York's Lieutenant Governor under George Pataki - had an excellent article in Bloomberg News on Monday. In it she writes:

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Bearing the brunt means that the federal government may decide that a 75 year-old person may be denied an MRI, e.g., because they may not live long enough to be a cost-effective investment. The language of the rules is more vague than that, however, but basically says that the Government will be making decisions based on the value of treatment on the basis of length of benefit.

That is why the elderly will be susceptible to rejection, but what of someone who is young and with a disease that will curtail longevity, but not kill immediately, who contracts another, more treatable disease? According to McCaughey's assessment of the rules, that person may face rejection purely on a cost basis.

So the plans before us now have everyone "covered", but it doesn't mean they'll get treatment. Sure, they may save a bundle on premiums, but they may not live long enough to enjoy the savings. Sorry.

Today, the stock market was performing blandly despite Obama's speech the night before, but shortly after his new Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, began to speak, the market plunged and closed down 382 points on the day. Following on the heels of the worst January performance in the history of a new presidency, a pattern begins to emerge. The "stimulus package" is destined to fail, and Wall Street hates it.

53% of Americans who voted for Obama also got their first real glimpse of his extemporaneous oratory skills last night. He has only been our president for about three weeks, but people are going to become disillusioned with him rather quickly. Couple that with the behavior of the members of congress who run the show now, and the apparent resurgence of the republican party under Michael Steele's leadership, and as long as we survive the next two years, there will be figurative blood-bath come the elections of 2010. People opposed to what has been either attempted or accomplished will surge to the polls. People who invested all their hope in Obama will be raging in dissapointment, and the decreased "middle-of-the-roaders" will have to wait to see what is offered up on election day.

Anyone standing to the right of center on that day, staring idly at the clouds, had better pay attention because that pendulum will be swinging fast; fast enough to cause bodily injury that may not be immediately treatable unless republicans can undo the damage done by democrats quickly.

And they had better remember to vote this time around.

Sphere: Related Content